Connected/Automated vehicles and infrastructure in Boston

[stefal]

Autonomous driving is supposed to decrease the amount of cars on streets via ridesharing, if everything goes according to "plan." The idea is that those who own self driving cars will drive to work and back, and while they're at work or while they're sleeping/have the day off, the car will perform an autonomous version of Uber/Lyft, from my understanding. (I think something like this is already/will be in the works at Tesla). You also have Uber who is developing their own fleets of self driving cars. Whittle, your concerns with the sheer amount of traffic, especially at rush hour, are still very valid. The idea of owning a car may drastically change in the coming 20-30 years. Only few will actually own them, but that hinges on whether consumers (especially in America, we're big on cars) follow this expected trend or not.

I think Musk and the CEOs of Uber, Google, and other autonomous driving companies are trying to hard to make self-driving cars work as well as they're expected to. It's a nice feature to have in cars, but they're reinventing the wheel when it comes to transit. Maybe its just me, but public transit via buses and trains seems to be the simpler, better, and cheaper option for travelers in cities, and a far cheaper and more efficient option for cities and city planners. Sure, a self-driving car is convenient, but that's about it, and public transit has the potential to almost rival the convenience of autonomous driving networks, if its well-funded and working properly (I'm aware that's a big if).

 

[BKNA]

good discussion. Its well known by planners that autonomous has its greatest impact if cars are treated like a utility and not a possession. Obviously the companies that are currently leading the charge in testing are completely on board with this.

The key is when do regulations get implemented. Cant do it too early a stifle innovation, cant wait too long until its already a problem.
So in other words, everything will be fine as long as the government acts proactively at the appropriate time. so yeah, should be fine...

1 thing that hasnt been mentioned as a benefit, is that autonomous vehicles will be MUCH better at actually driving than humans. That will result in countless benefits that will have an exponential positive impact as more and more autonomous vehicles are on the road talking to each other.

 

[JeffDowntown]

good discussion. Its well known by planners that autonomous has its greatest impact if cars are treated like a utility and not a possession. Obviously the companies that are currently leading the charge in testing are completely on board with this.

The key is when do regulations get implemented. Cant do it too early a stifle innovation, cant wait too long until its already a problem.
So in other words, everything will be fine as long as the government acts proactively at the appropriate time. so yeah, should be fine...

1 thing that hasnt been mentioned as a benefit, is that autonomous vehicles will be MUCH better at actually driving than humans. That will result in countless benefits that will have an exponential positive impact as more and more autonomous vehicles are on the road talking to each other.

And it is not just regulations that will be needed, but also interoperability standards (probably industry driven). All those autonomous cars cannot talk to each other (or to stationary infrastructure like traffic lights, traffic control centers, etc.) without interoperability protocols and communications standards.

 

[dshoost88]

Also a neat statistic:

The U.S. has about 144 billion square feet of total parking, which represents up to one-third of the total real estate in some large cities. Reports estimate self-driving vehicles have the potential to reduce parking space by about 61 billion square feet, which is about the size of Connecticut and Vermont combined. A reduction in the demand for parking can result in reclaiming this valuable real estate for more beneficial social and economic purposes.

That stat comes from this paper:
Autonomous Vehicles and Commercial Real Estate

With all due respect to the Cornell students you cited (whose thesis I agree with), their numbers wrong.

61 billion square feet converts to just under 2,200 square miles. Connecticut (5,543 square miles) and Vermont (9,623 square miles) combined make 15,000+ square miles... not 2,200.

Nevertheless, I look forward to the real estate development opportunities that autonomous, rideshare vehicles present to urban areas.

 

[jklo]

If self-driving cars actually become a thing, they will have to be taxed fairly heavily.

Oh, in theory in least if it gets that far it's going to be taxed heavily. But more for getting back the revenue they'd lose from parking fees, tickets, speed traps, etc.

Had to look up slugging. That's pretty funny; and yes a hybrid of it and something like Bridj could work. Take Boston/Cambridge for commuting purposes. You could easily whittle it down to a handful of end spots that would cover the majority of commuters into the city where they could be close enough to then walk to work. It'd be much more flexible and dynamic than say rail as trends change.

 

[Arlington]

The implication of being able to sleep in one's car is going to pose a real challenge: some interesting number of people will chose to live in their cars for days at a time, if not all week.

I predict that unless we institute a congestion charge, many will choose to own only a weekend home (in the outer Cape or Vermont) and to buy a self driving van (picture a Mercedes Sprinter), That would fill the role of "crash pad" or "room at a city club" --small hotel units have.

The $100k luxo van can be had for a tiny fraction of city real estate thanks to road space space being underpiced. The van might or might not park but would be left to roam the City "for free"-- by day it would circulate, parking opportunistically free or moving along when shooed along. When you needed a bed it would come to you and cruise slowly all night and drop you at the office/gym in the morning, where you'd shower and change.

The stigma of "living in your van" will disappear, even as the car erased the stigma of living outside the city in it's (previously) low class hinterlands.

 

[Proposition Joe]

The implication of being able to sleep in one's car is going to pose a real challenge: some interesting number of people will chose to live in their cars for days at a time, if not all week.

I predict that unless we institute a congestion charge, many will choose to own only a weekend home (in the outer Cape or Vermont) and to buy a self driving van (picture a Mercedes Sprinter), That would fill the role of "crash pad" or "room at a city club" --small hotel units have.

The $100k luxo van can be had for a tiny fraction of city real estate thanks to road space space being underpiced. The van might or might not park but would be left to roam the City "for free"-- by day it would circulate, parking opportunistically free or moving along when shooed along. When you needed a bed it would come to you and cruise slowly all night and drop you at the office/gym in the morning, where you'd shower and change.

The stigma of "living in your van" will disappear, even as the car erased the stigma of living outside the city in it's (previously) low class hinterlands.

As pessimistic as you lot are, road pricing will definitely be happening so this is not really a concern.

 

[Arlington]

As pessimistic as you lot are, road pricing will definitely be happening so this is not really a concern.

I don't think its useful or correct to characterize "the lot" of ArchBoston except, as, perhaps, "urbanists". I see myself as generally a techno-optimist and humanist-optimist.

As it is, I see self-driving cars arriving much much faster than road pricing--indeed self driving cars are already here in a way that road pricing isn't.

 

[Proposition Joe]

I don't think its useful or correct to characterize "the lot" of ArchBoston except, as, perhaps, "urbanists". I see myself as generally a techno-optimist and humanist-optimist.

As it is, I see self-driving cars arriving much much faster than road pricing--indeed self driving cars are already here in a way that road pricing isn't.

Your scenario where people are living in their cars seems pretty hellish and pessimistic to me.

Every policy conversation about autonomous vehicles invariable involves road pricing, the two issues are linked and road pricing will not be lagging behind AVs. AVs are also farther away than the news would suggest, particularly because level 3 AVs are not likely to be allowed on the roads due to distracted driver issues.

 

[Justin7]

road pricing will not be lagging behind AVs.

You seem weirdly certain about this. Self-driving cars are going to be difficult to hold back. A technology that adds a huge amount of convenience is going to be pretty damn popular once it sinks in that it also saves a huge number of lives. Road pricing (aka "New taxes! Everyone shit yourself!") on the other hand...

Though I'll agree that people living in their constantly roving luxury vans seems pretty far out there.

 

[fattony]

The implication of being able to sleep in one's car is going to pose a real challenge: some interesting number of people will chose to live in their cars for days at a time, if not all week.

I predict that unless we institute a congestion charge, many will choose to own only a weekend home (in the outer Cape or Vermont) and to buy a self driving van (picture a Mercedes Sprinter), That would fill the role of "crash pad" or "room at a city club" --small hotel units have.

The $100k luxo van can be had for a tiny fraction of city real estate thanks to road space space being underpiced. The van might or might not park but would be left to roam the City "for free"-- by day it would circulate, parking opportunistically free or moving along when shooed along. When you needed a bed it would come to you and cruise slowly all night and drop you at the office/gym in the morning, where you'd shower and change.

The stigma of "living in your van" will disappear, even as the car erased the stigma of living outside the city in it's (previously) low class hinterlands.

Fascinating concept. You don't need a hotel room either if your "car rental" has a bed.

However, bathroom/shower functionality is not trivial. RV facilities are not as comfortable as a conventional toilet, sink, and shower.

We can certainly imagine a business model to provide nice clean bathroom facilities for "rovers," but there will need to be some sort of toilet on-board for emergencies. That turns your van concept into an RV and very quickly the size, cost, and fuel economy run out of control.

 

[dwash59]

By far, the more reasonable concept to me seems to be that people will work in their cars and use that to live further out. Buy 2 hours outside the city, start your commute at 8, working in the car 8-10, be in the office from 10-3, commute back and work from 3-5 in the car.

 

[tysmith95]

^So what your saying is that it's time to invest in Portland Maine real estate.

 

[Arlington]

By far, the more reasonable concept to me seems to be that people will work in their cars and use that to live further out. Buy 2 hours outside the city, start your commute at 8, working in the car 8-10, be in the office from 10-3, commute back and work from 3-5 in the car.

Yes, clearly this will dominate (there'd still be an incentive to have your car work the day as an Uber while you're at the office...your car will crowd the streets, trying to earn a few bucks, rather than being a sure money-loser if parked). To me, it is obvious that everyone's car will do that and that *some* will then drive around at night (while the owner works late), and that at some point "lie flat seats" will be "a thing" that people will use overnight more often than we can easily picture today.

The miracle of the "easy" 80 mile commute is going to change where people choose to live, just as the Southeast Expressway meant that the Scituate oceanfront could be a year-round home (not just a second home)


Anything 80 to 120 miles from Boston is today considered "super-commuting" but soon will be a perfect AV commute, particularly if it is on a beach or mountain. But the same forces that compelled supercommuting today will be able to drive lie-flat commuting by 2030.

Fewer will fly to Newark for a meeting in, say, Morristown NJ (or go the night before and stay in a hotel) if they could just get in a car at 5am and be there for a 10am meeting. Almost immediately, those who find car-sleeping comfortable and who have a good clothes-and-hygiene option will chose to get in their car at 10pm for their 10am meeting in Morristown and it will strike them that they could do the same thing from their house in the Berkshires for their office day in Boston.

Just as the inner ring of 'burbs suffered when the freeways opened, I'd expect the "drove myself" suburbs to suffer when the "was driven" frontier opens for practical commuting.

 

[Arlington]

We can certainly imagine a business model to provide nice clean bathroom facilities for "rovers," but there will need to be some sort of toilet on-board for emergencies. That turns your van concept into an RV and very quickly the size, cost, and fuel economy run out of control.

Wait, Why would they need an on-board toilet? What is this emergency that puts them any further from a public toilet than any other person in a car or visitor to a city or user of the Mass Pike?

But far far nicer, cheaper and widespread are 24-hour Fitness memberships would get you all you'd need (swipe card access to a nationwide chain of gyms, most featuring private showers & toilets)
https://www.24hourfitness.com/
https://www.anytimefitness.com/
https://www.snapfitness.com/

 

[jklo]

I'm of the opinion that while I do think the tech is coming sooner than people think, it will really end up being not much more than a much cheaper Uber or UberBus.

I will say that Self-Driving whatevers could end up being a negative for Boston if they do end up being a hit. As maligned as it is, the MBTA's reach is one of Boston's biggest strengths; but if SDW ends up being real popular the city's crappy roads will end up being a big negative versus other cities which have a much better road layout.

 

[fattony]

I'm of the opinion that while I do think the tech is coming sooner than people think, it will really end up being not much more than a much cheaper Uber or UberBus.

I will say that Self-Driving whatevers could end up being a negative for Boston if they do end up being a hit. As maligned as it is, the MBTA's reach is one of Boston's biggest strengths; but if SDW ends up being real popular the city's crappy roads will end up being a big negative versus other cities which have a much better road layout.

I thought quite the contrary. Buses in Boston are relatively difficult to use because of our impossible to memorize geometry. Uber was a huge boon to Boston because it took much of the know-how out of getting around our complicated city. Autonomous vehicles will continue along the same lines to help people get around without really knowing where they are going. That is especially good for Boston, but generally good for everyone everywhere (except transit workers and taxi drivers).

Autonomous vehicles will be bad for buses for sure. The MBTA broadly might do ok because autonomous vehicles will arrive just in time to give the subway some much needed relief.

 

[fattony]

Wait, Why would they need an on-board toilet? What is this emergency that puts them any further from a public toilet than any other person in a car or visitor to a city or user of the Mass Pike?

But far far nicer, cheaper and widespread are 24-hour Fitness memberships would get you all you'd need (swipe card access to a nationwide chain of gyms, most featuring private showers & toilets)
https://www.24hourfitness.com/
https://www.anytimefitness.com/
https://www.snapfitness.com/

How far do you usually sleep from a toilet and sink? I'm guessing no more than 10 seconds. People brush their teeth before bed and pee in the middle of the night. People get sick. Are you going to hang out at the gym the next time you get the runs? We have indoor plumbing for a reason - it makes life much, much, much more comfortable. We get through the day using public facilities, but we all go home to sleep within 10 seconds of a toilet.

 

[jklo]

I thought quite the contrary. Buses in Boston are relatively difficult to use because of our impossible to memorize geometry.

Well, I would think Turn-By-Turn would help on that.

Autonomous vehicles will be bad for buses for sure. The MBTA broadly might do ok because autonomous vehicles will arrive just in time to give the subway some much needed relief.

One possibility is that people would use it as the "last mile" to get to the subway.

 

[Balerion]

I don't see autonomous vehicles having a huge impact on the mode share of urban areas. AVs will suffer from the same geometric inefficiencies that regular cars do. AVs may be even less efficient because they will inevitably travel a considerable number of deadhead/"zero occupancy" miles.

How many people can you take out of buses, trains, and the subway and put on the roads? There is already a tremendous amount of roadway congestion.

I admittedly am not as immersed in the current state of AV technology as some are, but I am suspicious about the timelines that industry leaders tout. The complexity of urban streets is high. I think tolerance for AV "errors" that kill pedestrians and cyclists will be much lower than what is currently accepted for human driver errors because of psychological reasons.

As AV technology is refined, it seems clear to me that they could replace the role that personal cars play in cities as well as Uber/Lyft/taxis, but I just don't see the capacity for them to do much more.